Ich/velvet in mandarin.

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

*it is about 10 feet from the infected tank.

Aerosol transmission of disease organisms is rare, but not unknown. The most common cause of transmission is through tank tools or a person's hand moving tank to tank.

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

I removed him when he died the photo was taken a couple of minutes later. There was definitely a very heavy ich infection on him. He went from asymptomatic to dead in 4 days. The mucus outside the water hides the spots. The clowns have shown spots but are acting and feeding normally, no depression. They are absolutely infected though.

I wouldn’t discount a secondary agent or infection that’s for sure. He wasn’t thin that’s for sure. But I do think if anyone ever says mandarins can’t or won’t get inch then point them to this thread.

The copper issue really revolves around feeding. I’d be willing to risk chelated copper but I’d worry about the pod supply.

Yes - mandarins do get ich, I'm not sure where that idea came from, but it does seem to be perpetuated.....

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

If you weren't doing anything other than lowered salinity, then the best you could hope for was a 20-25% reduction in the swarmer population. For most fish, most situations, that is an insignificant reduction.

So, consider that the infection (ich, velvet, whatever) *was present* – the Mandarin didn't apparently have a problem withstanding an "80+% complete" loading of swarmers. That's tough!!!

You removing the one control on the swarmers (by raising salinity) was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak, allowing the swarmer population to balloon "to its full potential", finally overwhelming the fishes MASSIVE immune defense.

Let's take back what we said about the Mandarin's slime coat being inadequate and give him the props he deserves! Hero's honors! It's pretty amazing what he has endured IMO.

Applying any of those added measures I mentioned in some combination (UV, et al) would almost certainly have changed the story on this fish for the better.

The idea that a specific gravity of 1.020 somehow helps control Cryptocaryon outbreaks is not borne out in real life. 1.020 only serves to save stores money on salt, and help reduce osmotic stress in fish with damaged skin. It can actually increase the incidence of Uronema and Amyloodinium (at least 1.020 is smack within the preferred range for those two species)

There is a paper that indicates that the prevalence of Cryptocaryon in wild caught fish was highest at the mouth of an estuary, and lowest out on the Great Barrier reef itself. The paper also shows why newly collected wild caught fish must be treated prophylactically.

Infections of Cryptocaryon irritans on wild fish from southeast Queensland, Australia
B. K. Diggles, R. J. G. Lester

ABSTRACT: Wild-caught marine fish from 3 sites in SE Queensland, Australia, were examined over a
period of up to 13 mo for infections of the parasitic ciliate Cryptocaryon irritans. Infections of C. irritans
were found to be common on the fish sampled. Out of a total of 358 fish (14 species), 239 (66.7%) from
13 species were found to be infected. At Site 1 at the mouth of an estuary, the prevalence of C. irritans
infections was 79% and the mean intensity was 12.9 parasites fish-'. At Site 2, a coastal bar area, the
prevalence of infection dropped to 66 % and a mean intensity of 5.0 parasites fish-', whilst at Site 3 on
the Great Barrier Reef, prevalence was lowest at 51 % with a mean intensity of 2.3 parasites fish-' The
study concentrated on 2 sparid fishes, Acanthopagrus australis from Sites 1 and 2 and Gymnocranius
audleyi from Site 3. The prevalence of infections on A. australis from Site 1 (n = 101) was 100% with a
mean intensity of 14.6 parasites fish-', whilst at Site 2 (n = 74) the prevalence was 88 % at a mean intensity
of 5.2 parasites fish-'. There was no apparent seasonality In prevalence or intensity of infections at
Sites 1 and 2 despite water temperatures ranging between 15 and 27°C. At Site 3, the prevalence of
infections of G. audleyi (n = 39) was 38% with a mean intensity of 1.9 parasites fish-'. The diameter of
the tomonts collected from A. australis from Sites 1 and 2 vaned inversely with water temperature, and
was not related to host size. Our results show that infections of C vntans are common on wild fish, not
rare as previously thought. This may be partially due to the increased sensitivity of our tomont collection
technique. Our data suggest that C. irritansmay exhibit a degree of host specificity in the wild, and
also that its natural distribution can be extended into estuaries and seasonally into warm temperate
waters.

 

[Australian_Reef]

Yes - mandarins do get ich, I'm not sure where that idea came from, but it does seem to be perpetuated.....

Point to this thread. I too believed this before I saw it.
I also didn’t understand the difficulty in the prophylactic or symptomatic treatment of a mandarin/dragonet. I knew about eels, sharks, wrasses. But not mandarins.

 

[Australian_Reef]

The idea that a specific gravity of 1.020 somehow helps control Cryptocaryon outbreaks is not borne out in real life. 1.020 only serves to save stores money on salt, and help reduce osmotic stress in fish with damaged skin. It can actually increase the incidence of Uronema and Amyloodinium (at least 1.020 is smack within the preferred range for those two species)

There is a paper that indicates that the prevalence of Cryptocaryon in wild caught fish was highest at the mouth of an estuary, and lowest out on the Great Barrier reef itself. The paper also shows why newly collected wild caught fish must be treated prophylactically.

Infections of Cryptocaryon irritans on wild fish from southeast Queensland, Australia
B. K. Diggles, R. J. G. Lester

ABSTRACT: Wild-caught marine fish from 3 sites in SE Queensland, Australia, were examined over a
period of up to 13 mo for infections of the parasitic ciliate Cryptocaryon irritans. Infections of C. irritans
were found to be common on the fish sampled. Out of a total of 358 fish (14 species), 239 (66.7%) from
13 species were found to be infected. At Site 1 at the mouth of an estuary, the prevalence of C. irritans
infections was 79% and the mean intensity was 12.9 parasites fish-'. At Site 2, a coastal bar area, the
prevalence of infection dropped to 66 % and a mean intensity of 5.0 parasites fish-', whilst at Site 3 on
the Great Barrier Reef, prevalence was lowest at 51 % with a mean intensity of 2.3 parasites fish-' The
study concentrated on 2 sparid fishes, Acanthopagrus australis from Sites 1 and 2 and Gymnocranius
audleyi from Site 3. The prevalence of infections on A. australis from Site 1 (n = 101) was 100% with a
mean intensity of 14.6 parasites fish-', whilst at Site 2 (n = 74) the prevalence was 88 % at a mean intensity
of 5.2 parasites fish-'. There was no apparent seasonality In prevalence or intensity of infections at
Sites 1 and 2 despite water temperatures ranging between 15 and 27°C. At Site 3, the prevalence of
infections of G. audleyi (n = 39) was 38% with a mean intensity of 1.9 parasites fish-'. The diameter of
the tomonts collected from A. australis from Sites 1 and 2 vaned inversely with water temperature, and
was not related to host size. Our results show that infections of C vntans are common on wild fish, not
rare as previously thought. This may be partially due to the increased sensitivity of our tomont collection
technique. Our data suggest that C. irritansmay exhibit a degree of host specificity in the wild, and
also that its natural distribution can be extended into estuaries and seasonally into warm temperate
waters.

My main take from this is that at BEST the rate was 51%. Proves the need for prophylactic treatment in every case. I’d argue the rate was independent of salinity but directly related to population concentration and habitat suitability. Although that’s just a hypothesis based on my observation.

Often juvenile tropical species are moved south of their natural range in eastern Australia due to ocean currents (yes finding nemo was based on reality!). Many survive the summer but not the winter. General health suffers and the renders the fish susceptible to pathogens. Some (few) survive the winter and become endemic to new areas, often offshore islands like lord Howe, more so with the ocean warming.

I personally would still choose to house a fish only system at 1.02-1.022. But isn’t with a view to any disease suppression. I think fish do better at slightly lower salinity, the same as corals grow better at a higher kh/ph than natural salt water.

 

[Australian_Reef]

Aerosol transmission of disease organisms is rare, but not unknown. The most common cause of transmission is through tank tools or a person's hand moving tank to tank.

Strict QT in place. But it’s so easy to make a mistake. I have done already and reset the clock.

 

[W31Olds]

My current WC Mandarin went through over 40 days in QT without Pods eating Frozen and Pellets. Probably what made the most significant impact was this fish was alone in a cycled 20 Gal long with Algae growth. Without other fish, I could Target Feed multiple times (4-5) a day without competition.

 

[MnFish1]

That's misleading...the purpose is to keep down theront population vs letting them balloon out of control. It works for that purpose.

A specific gravity of 1.020 as far as I know does not significantly help with ich. In theory I guess it could keep them from 'ballooning out of control' - but for a fish store, for example, I don't think it is a good practice. Additionally a lower SG helps velvet. So what are we really gaining?

I don't understand. Are unaware of the studies to the contrary, or in disbelief, or...?

I am aware of 'some' studies on another site. I am not sure they are as successful as they seem - but I may have seen the wrong ones - can you send a link to show that H2O2 alone kills ich (as compared to the ich just going away on its own)?

There is more than one, BTW. Experiment has been re-proven more than once.

Please send the links

I've seen no evidence to the contrary, and I know first hand the non-/lower-stress benefits of simple (non-H2O2) freshwater baths in these situations. The fact that they've also been able to substantiate this method in multiple lab scenarios is validating, IMO

Again - can you send the links for these studies? Freshwater dips are best (IMHO) reserved for fish that are severely infected (except with velvet) as a last resort.

It does have a minor effect on outbreak severity and lethality though!

Can you post your source?

True!

I'm hoping you have been doing more than just observation in the holding tank?

IE. what about UV, ozone, herbal treatments (eg Ruby Reef), et al?

Ruby reef is not an herbal treatment. UV may help but once a disease is present (i.e. active infection - it's not as effective. Ozone has its benefits and disadvantages. I'm not sure disease is one of the advantages.

Observation alone would require a lot more time than you gave, IMO, and be done under better (non-temporary) tank conditions.

Agree

It *can* be done stressfully, but it's not inherently stressful.

I say that having done freshwater dips from 10-60 minutes (as called for) on *lots* of fish. (Retail quantities.)

Only a tiny percentage experience a panic reaction – and I mean tiny – but it seemed random as to which types.

It depends on the health of the underlying fish.

"QT" means hospital tank for most people – the terms seem to have gotten confused and blended somehow. Should be un unnecessary clarification, but that's modern times. ;)

There is 'observation quarantine' and 'medication quarantine'. Agree most people just say QT which is confusing.

 

[bouttreepriddy]

Its rare they get ich but do get flukes which this appears to be. For both , you can utilize chloroquine phosphate at 10mg/L for two weeks and its safe for pods at this concentration so fish can eat

Just checking that I am reading this correctly. Is chloroquine phosphate a treatment for flukes?

 

[vetteguy53081]

Just checking that I am reading this correctly. Is chloroquine phosphate a treatment for flukes?

No - for ich, velvet and most protozoan disrupting the metabolism of these parasites

 

[mcarroll]

A specific gravity of 1.020 as far as I know does not significantly help with ich. In theory I guess it could keep them from 'ballooning out of control' - but for a fish store, for example, I don't think it is a good practice. Additionally a lower SG helps velvet. So what are we really gaining?

I've been posting this for quite a while. ;)

SRAC 4705: Amyloodinium ocellatum, an Important Parasite of Cultured Marine Fish

It's a good stand alone article, but of course (as I do) check the relevant references and go to Google Scholar from there for more.

If you have access to Noga's "Fish Disease..." book, he covers it as well...again, continue from there to Google Scholar if you need more.

I gave up on this a while back due to apparent lack of interest, but it has lots of great links. I may have to start updating it again if there's a way to get edit access.

I am aware of 'some' studies on another site. I am not sure they are as successful as they seem - but I may have seen the wrong ones - can you send a link to show that H2O2 alone kills ich (as compared to the ich just going away on its own)?

Please send the links

Not sure I know the reference you mean. BTW, calling it "Ich" is confusing at this level of conversation IMO – Crypto, or Cryptocaryon are better since they will generate more meaningful search results for people.

IMO I think we're often better off being ambiguous about whether it's Crypto or Velvet vs. acting more certain than we really are. Ich/velvet are never positively ID'd by hobbyists, and they are substantially similar in lifestyle, symptoms and treatment.

Seems like folks default to talking about velvet since it's slightly nastier....and that mostly works.

So primarily I would suggest seeing doc# 4705 linked above (regarding velvet), and the references therein. All good solutions are discussed. Hit Google Scholar from there as needed.

If you wanna focus on Ich, this is my usual online go-to: FA164/FA164: Cryptocaryon irritans Infections (Marine White Spot ... It's a good baseline, though it doesn't mention dips or peroxide. Anyhow, these folks got up to 91% kill rate with peroxide (they did even better with an herbal).

Point being for us is that 100 ppm h2o2 was the highest concentration dip that was tested in that study. Folks in other studies (on velvet) are using higher h2o2 concentrations than that (100-300 ppm if I recall correctly), so ich would fall to those same treatments. (See link in next section.)

Again - can you send the links for these studies? Freshwater dips are best (IMHO) reserved for fish that are severely infected (except with velvet) as a last resort.
Can you post your source?

Again, doc #4705 posted above contains references for this to start you off. I do recommend reading the whole thing though.

A newer ref with a lot more detail, including baths, peroxide and A LOT more: 5. Amyloodiniosis in Semi-Intensive Aquaculture. This is a GREAT adjunct to doc 4705. Table 1 toward the end of section 4 is gold.

If someone doesn't want to read those links....a freshwater dip is used to provide immediate relief by removing attached swarmers.

Freshwater dips can be used strategically, almost as-needed. Unlike most meds, there's almost no stress involved (be gentle, avoid nets and avoid air exposure – not hard in most cases)*, so there's no reason NOT to do a dip at the first sign of an issue, depending on the exact scenario. I've dipped a LOT of common marine fish with virtually no side effects whatsoever – a few panic instances (mentioned before, not really a big deal) and one instance where I forgot to dechlorinate. MANY, MANY event-free dips tho. I specifically remember dipping a LOT of Tangs, quite a few Triggers, but many others.

Funny how freshwater dips get considered exotic and "harsh" around and at the same time we're all willy nilly and free with formalin and copper, which are both hard to use and verifiably deadly to the fish if used even slightly wrong. Chelated copper is slightly better, but also slightly less effective and less tested as well.

Noga, and probably other major sources go into these cautionary details because they are important for risk assessment. Water is not as dangerous as formalin or copper – duh, right?! I don't read every conversation online, but I never seem to see these points brought up when Formalin or Copper is being recommended or used. Dips in freshwater have no such problem.....anyone can do one and they're about as close to foolproof as you can get. (Just don't forget to dechlorinate the tap water.....I forgot that once. Once.)

Ruby reef is not an herbal treatment.

Well, Ruby Reef is a company...but as far as I know they specialize in coral-safe/tank-safe products: Rally and Kick Ich. I admit it's my assumption that they are herbal treatments...I may have heard that somewhere, but I don't remember where. (What I do know is that I've used most of them in retail and they seem to function as advertised. )

Hydroplex is the exception – it's a dip; not tank safe, and I haven't used it personally yet.

UV may help but once a disease is present (i.e. active infection - it's not as effective. Ozone has its benefits and disadvantages. I'm not sure disease is one of the advantages.

Hm....I don't know if looking at it that way is helpful.

We aren't looking to UV to cure clinically infected fish. Ozone does work vs diseases per the literature (I think Jay speculated the action is similar to peroxide in another thread), but it's pretty uncommon in our wing of the hobby, at least in my experience....literally never seen an ozone generator in person, for sale or otherwise.

Makes no sense to me why UV (still) isn't better understood and used more widely – as far as I can tell, it's a very old, established technology....yet it gets treated like it was snake oil. Very odd. Consider that pest algae dino's are dino's and velvet are also dino's......UV works great for the former, even with the janky setups people tend to use. There's no reason to assume things would be very different for parasitic dino's.

Put it another way for UV and similar: Under what circumstance would you want to give up your control on the situation and purposefully expose your fish to the full brunt of the possible parasite load? Controlling water parameters is good for up to 20% reduction. UV is good for 80+% reduction. Micron, ozone and the rest just take the control percentage higher and higher toward 100% control. Medicinal remedies don't need to come out until the immune systems are obviously not winning the battle anymore.....being observant, it's not hard to discern when a fish is going uphill or downhill – improving or not.

Spotte makes a good point about this in "Captive Seawater Fishes..." The fish gets sick because its immune system gets shut down by his own stress responses. Stresses like parasite load matter. (So does everything else – stress is cumulative.) Velvet (Amyloodinium) infections in fish can easily be avoided. is another good article – they used a very comprehensive control system.

Agree

It depends on the health of the underlying fish.

There is 'observation quarantine' and 'medication quarantine'. Agree most people just say QT which is confusing.

Glad I'm not the only one who sees that. ;)

That blurring goes along with this madness of assuming all fish are sick whether they show it or not (eliminating the concept of clinical and subclinical) and treating them regardless of their actual condition. If med's were a miracle cure, then that might make sense. But med's are not a miracle cure any more than anything else is.

Of course, this "lack of miracles" is exactly why a comprehensive approach is required on these matters.

Simply treating with meds is not doing anything to move toward "comprehensive". No more comprehensive than doing nothing or just using UV, only with the added risk and toxicity stress that comes from the meds themselves.

Not talking about meds as part of a comprehensive strategy....In a comprehensive strategy the added stress and risk are much more accounted for.

I'm glad BTW that I at least occasionally see people chime in to say they got fish successfully through "standard QT" because IMO that is a miracle. I'm also glad chelated copper has become more common as it's safer and harder to do wrong......but all the sources say it's also not as effective as old-school copper. "Eradication" is a word that gets thrown around very confidently, but I'm not sure that's actually possible....sources seem to always hedge (eg) that even copper can leave some alive. Just reinforces that there are no miracle cures.


Sorry this got so long.....tell me if I forgot to address anything you asked about. :)

 

[mcarroll]

The idea that a specific gravity of 1.020 somehow helps control Cryptocaryon outbreaks is not borne out in real life.

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to anything I could read? Thread or journal article, etc? I can believe it on an anecdotal basis, if that's the case – nothing is perfect.

Noga (p.135) seems to indicate it with some specificity, and this work is generally trustworthy as far as I've known:

Treatment

1. Hyposalinity (16 ppt or less) for 14 days
2. Hyposalinity (10 ppt) for 3 hours q 3 days × 4
3. Transfer fi sh to new aquarium q 3 days × 4
4. Lower temperature to < 19 ° C (66 ° F)
5. Copper prolonged immersion
6. Chloroquine prolonged immersion

(We didn't use hyposalinity at retail, FWIW, so no personal experience there. My understanding is that when they had in the past it created a lot of extra work and didn't appear to deliver payoff amid the other things we were doing such as stress reduction, freshwater dips and strong UV. Not so presume hypo did nothing, but with all of other measures, hypo seemed redundant.)

There is a paper that indicates that the prevalence of Cryptocaryon in wild caught fish was highest at the mouth of an estuary, and lowest out on the Great Barrier reef itself.

Fish are more stressed in those areas, so it's not that straight forward. a conclusion IMO.

Our results show that infections of C vntans are common on wild fish, not
rare as previously thought. This may be partially due to the increased sensitivity of our tomont collection
technique. Our data suggest that C. irritansmay exhibit a degree of host specificity in the wild, and
also that its natural distribution can be extended into estuaries and seasonally into warm temperate
waters.

I think their explanation of their observations is worth pointing out....things are as they have been, not worse; sampling is improving enough to detect what are very low intensity infections.

Just as a point of reference, that article was written in 1996. Apparently before that someone thought Crypto was more rare than it really is. I'm not sure we (in the hobby) ever thought crypto was rare from our point of view....not at least since the 1950's.)

And it seems to me all they are saying is that it's detectable and it's in more fish than expected over a wider range.

It's a leap (almost against the content of the article) to say these fish being surveyed in the article are all clinical and need copper treatment. I don't see how we get that from this article. Links provided...
https://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/25/d025p159.pdf

Infections of Cryptocaryon irritans on wild fish from southeast Queensland, Australia​

 

[Australian_Reef]

I've been posting this for quite a while. ;)

SRAC 4705: Amyloodinium ocellatum, an Important Parasite of Cultured Marine Fish

It's a good stand alone article, but of course (as I do) check the relevant references and go to Google Scholar from there for more.

If you have access to Noga's "Fish Disease..." book, he covers it as well...again, continue from there to Google Scholar if you need more.

I gave up on this a while back due to apparent lack of interest, but it has lots of great links. I may have to start updating it again if there's a way to get edit access.


Not sure I know the reference you mean. BTW, calling it "Ich" is confusing at this level of conversation IMO – Crypto, or Cryptocaryon are better since they will generate more meaningful search results for people.

IMO I think we're often better off being ambiguous about whether it's Crypto or Velvet vs. acting more certain than we really are. Ich/velvet are never positively ID'd by hobbyists, and they are substantially similar in lifestyle, symptoms and treatment.

Seems like folks default to talking about velvet since it's slightly nastier....and that mostly works.

So primarily I would suggest seeing doc# 4705 linked above (regarding velvet), and the references therein. All good solutions are discussed. Hit Google Scholar from there as needed.

If you wanna focus on Ich, this is my usual online go-to: FA164/FA164: Cryptocaryon irritans Infections (Marine White Spot ... It's a good baseline, though it doesn't mention dips or peroxide. Anyhow, these folks got up to 91% kill rate with peroxide (they did even better with an herbal).

Point being for us is that 100 ppm h2o2 was the highest concentration dip that was tested in that study. Folks in other studies (on velvet) are using higher h2o2 concentrations than that (100-300 ppm if I recall correctly), so ich would fall to those same treatments. (See link in next section.)


Again, doc #4705 posted above contains references for this to start you off. I do recommend reading the whole thing though.

A newer ref with a lot more detail, including baths, peroxide and A LOT more: 5. Amyloodiniosis in Semi-Intensive Aquaculture. This is a GREAT adjunct to doc 4705. Table 1 toward the end of section 4 is gold.

If someone doesn't want to read those links....a freshwater dip is used to provide immediate relief by removing attached swarmers.

Freshwater dips can be used strategically, almost as-needed. Unlike most meds, there's almost no stress involved (be gentle, avoid nets and avoid air exposure – not hard in most cases)*, so there's no reason NOT to do a dip at the first sign of an issue, depending on the exact scenario. I've dipped a LOT of common marine fish with virtually no side effects whatsoever – a few panic instances (mentioned before, not really a big deal) and one instance where I forgot to dechlorinate. MANY, MANY event-free dips tho. I specifically remember dipping a LOT of Tangs, quite a few Triggers, but many others.

Funny how freshwater dips get considered exotic and "harsh" around and at the same time we're all willy nilly and free with formalin and copper, which are both hard to use and verifiably deadly to the fish if used even slightly wrong. Chelated copper is slightly better, but also slightly less effective and less tested as well.

Noga, and probably other major sources go into these cautionary details because they are important for risk assessment. Water is not as dangerous as formalin or copper – duh, right?! I don't read every conversation online, but I never seem to see these points brought up when Formalin or Copper is being recommended or used. Dips in freshwater have no such problem.....anyone can do one and they're about as close to foolproof as you can get. (Just don't forget to dechlorinate the tap water.....I forgot that once. Once.)



Well, Ruby Reef is a company...but as far as I know they specialize in coral-safe/tank-safe products: Rally and Kick Ich. I admit it's my assumption that they are herbal treatments...I may have heard that somewhere, but I don't remember where. (What I do know is that I've used most of them in retail and they seem to function as advertised. )

Hydroplex is the exception – it's a dip; not tank safe, and I haven't used it personally yet.


Hm....I don't know if looking at it that way is helpful.

We aren't looking to UV to cure clinically infected fish. Ozone does work vs diseases per the literature (I think Jay speculated the action is similar to peroxide in another thread), but it's pretty uncommon in our wing of the hobby, at least in my experience....literally never seen an ozone generator in person, for sale or otherwise.

Makes no sense to me why UV (still) isn't better understood and used more widely – as far as I can tell, it's a very old, established technology....yet it gets treated like it was snake oil. Very odd. Consider that pest algae dino's are dino's and velvet are also dino's......UV works great for the former, even with the janky setups people tend to use. There's no reason to assume things would be very different for parasitic dino's.

Put it another way for UV and similar: Under what circumstance would you want to give up your control on the situation and purposefully expose your fish to the full brunt of the possible parasite load? Controlling water parameters is good for up to 20% reduction. UV is good for 80+% reduction. Micron, ozone and the rest just take the control percentage higher and higher toward 100% control. Medicinal remedies don't need to come out until the immune systems are obviously not winning the battle anymore.....being observant, it's not hard to discern when a fish is going uphill or downhill – improving or not.

Spotte makes a good point about this in "Captive Seawater Fishes..." The fish gets sick because its immune system gets shut down by his own stress responses. Stresses like parasite load matter. (So does everything else – stress is cumulative.) Velvet (Amyloodinium) infections in fish can easily be avoided. is another good article – they used a very comprehensive control system.


Glad I'm not the only one who sees that. ;)

That blurring goes along with this madness of assuming all fish are sick whether they show it or not (eliminating the concept of clinical and subclinical) and treating them regardless of their actual condition. If med's were a miracle cure, then that might make sense. But med's are not a miracle cure any more than anything else is.

Of course, this "lack of miracles" is exactly why a comprehensive approach is required on these matters.

Simply treating with meds is not doing anything to move toward "comprehensive". No more comprehensive than doing nothing or just using UV, only with the added risk and toxicity stress that comes from the meds themselves.

Not talking about meds as part of a comprehensive strategy....In a comprehensive strategy the added stress and risk are much more accounted for.

I'm glad BTW that I at least occasionally see people chime in to say they got fish successfully through "standard QT" because IMO that is a miracle. I'm also glad chelated copper has become more common as it's safer and harder to do wrong......but all the sources say it's also not as effective as old-school copper. "Eradication" is a word that gets thrown around very confidently, but I'm not sure that's actually possible....sources seem to always hedge (eg) that even copper can leave some alive. Just reinforces that there are no miracle cures.


Sorry this got so long.....tell me if I forgot to address anything you asked about. :)

All very interesting conversations.
May I ask what protocol you follow when introducing new fish and/or corals and what disease management systems you run on your tank?

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to anything I could read? Thread or journal article, etc? I can believe it on an anecdotal basis, if that's the case – nothing is perfect.

Noga (p.135) seems to indicate it with some specificity, and this work is generally trustworthy as far as I've known:


(We didn't use hyposalinity at retail, FWIW, so no personal experience there. My understanding is that when they had in the past it created a lot of extra work and didn't appear to deliver payoff amid the other things we were doing such as stress reduction, freshwater dips and strong UV. Not so presume hypo did nothing, but with all of other measures, hypo seemed redundant.)


Fish are more stressed in those areas, so it's not that straight forward. a conclusion IMO.


I think their explanation of their observations is worth pointing out....things are as they have been, not worse; sampling is improving enough to detect what are very low intensity infections.

Just as a point of reference, that article was written in 1996. Apparently before that someone thought Crypto was more rare than it really is. I'm not sure we (in the hobby) ever thought crypto was rare from our point of view....not at least since the 1950's.)

And it seems to me all they are saying is that it's detectable and it's in more fish than expected over a wider range.

It's a leap (almost against the content of the article) to say these fish being surveyed in the article are all clinical and need copper treatment. I don't see how we get that from this article. Links provided...
https://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/25/d025p159.pdf

Infections of Cryptocaryon irritans on wild fish from southeast Queensland, Australia​

Regarding low salinity not adversely affecting Cryptocaryon, I used the term “real life”, I was referring to anecdotal observations taken over my 50+ year career in the pet trade and public aquariums. Very often, that serves me better than references; Neither Ed Noga or Ruth Francis-Floyd appear to have much personal knowledge of aquarium husbandry, they mostly use references (of varying age and quality) to make their husbandry conclusions (although Ruth has done some lab work). When you read their material, you really do need to confirm those references. I use their resources mostly for drug information, images, and disease organism taxonomy.

We see time and time again, where a specific gravity of 1.012 fails to control Cryptocaryon, even where 1.010 fails. Why then, should 1.020 have any control at all?

The biggest argument against LRS holding fish at 1.020 isn't even ich related. Stores have been doing this since the 1970's. Back in the day, we would buy fish, take them home and acclimate them to our tanks that were at perhaps, 1.021. That worked out well. Trouble is, some stores have not let go of this old idea (or it has been perpetuated for them). but NOW people buy those fish and acclimate them into their home tanks at 1.025. Osmotic dehydration results, severely stressing or even killing the fish outright.

 

[mcarroll]

We see time and time again, where a specific gravity of 1.012 fails to control Cryptocaryon

Are they claiming that it will control Crypto by itself, or that it's a good tool in a comprehensive strategy?

Those are two very different claims.

Also, I wonder if there's an assumption that "control" is specific in meaning 100% control, ie eradication?

At least from the way I read this stuff, "control" means a range of control that can be from 1-100% effective. That's why you see concentration testing where they determine the dosage that gets close to "100% control". (Nothing's perfect.)

In the case of hypo (at least claims I've seen) it gives you a small degree of control over what the apex of the outbreak looks like in terms of total number of swarmers.....giving us control over whether the outbreak is "better" or "worse".

If we're looking for 100% kill-rate, then no, hyposalinity does not accomplish the goal.

It doesn't work because that's not what the tool is for – like driving in screws with a multimeter or something; nonsense.

Regarding low salinity not adversely affecting Cryptocaryon, I used the term “real life”, I was referring to anecdotal observations taken over my 50+ year career in the pet trade and public aquariums. Very often, that serves me better than references;

I guess what I was hoping to find out was how was hypo used; in what overall scheme Eg ..with copper? ..with ..UV? ..in a pond? ..for 10 minutes? ..at 19 ppm?)

I mostly asked for something already published (or posted, etc) to save you a lot of typing here just on account of my curiosity – not out of doubt of your conclusion per se. Looking for all the detail since details always seem to matter in these situations. :)

It's easy to imagine circumstances where hypo would do no good, even if it did exactly what they seem to claim in the literature. (I have only seen claims of ~20% reduction in swarmers or other mild effects.)

It's also easy to imagine scenarios where that type of tool could be leveraged in an overall strategy.

In any event, there's certainly an ungainly amount of "conventional wisdom" floating around the hobby about when, how and if to use hyposalinity....so the more light on the subject the better from that angle at least.

Neither Ed Noga or Ruth Francis-Floyd appear to have much personal knowledge of aquarium husbandry, they mostly use references (of varying age and quality) to make their husbandry conclusions (although Ruth has done some lab work). When you read their material, you really do need to confirm those references. I use their resources mostly for drug information, images, and disease organism taxonomy.

I'd say drug info is the main use for me, but the Problems section is at least well-referenced and comprehensive – I have found them to be useful.

For what it's worth, the reference book "Fish Disease – Diagnosis and Treatment" is cited by a LOT of other literature, and while I don't use most of the book (most of the diseases and most of the meds are edge cases or N/A to our hobby) I haven't noticed any major gaps or inconsistency with the parts that I use. I do tend to trace references to parts that are relevant to me (limited by the usual paywalls). And it's got close to 50 pages worth of ref's. Seems like a quality reference manual to me, at least from my vantage point. It's definitely better than our hobby's "common knowledge" on the subject, and it's way more complete than any other book I have that touches on the subject. I wish it was priced for hobbyists so more people had it.

 

[MnFish1]

II've been posting this for quite a while. ;)

SRAC 4705: Amyloodinium ocellatum, an Important Parasite of Cultured Marine Fish

It's a good stand alone article, but of course (as I do) check the relevant references and go to Google Scholar from there for more.

If you have access to Noga's "Fish Disease..." book, he covers it as well...again, continue from there to Google Scholar if you need more.

Can you do me a favor - I don't know to what I said that this refers to - I'm happy to read the articles:) and appreciate them. Jay has also written at least one article of this type as well

I gave up on this a while back due to apparent lack of interest, but it has lots of great links. I may have to start updating it again if there's a way to get edit access.


Not sure I know the reference you mean. BTW, calling it "Ich" is confusing at this level of conversation IMO – Crypto, or Cryptocaryon are better since they will generate more meaningful search results for people.

I agree totally with you - I used to call it CI (cryptocaryon irritans) but I was told by a couple posters that they had never heard of it so I just stuck with ich. I believe most of the H2O2 studies have been posted on the Humblefish site.

IMO I think we're often better off being ambiguous about whether it's Crypto or Velvet vs. acting more certain than we really are. Ich/velvet are never positively ID'd by hobbyists, and they are substantially similar in lifestyle, symptoms and treatment.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one - in marine fish - velvet often shows only symptoms until the fish is near death. Whereas CI:) more often shows spots.

Seems like folks default to talking about velvet since it's slightly nastier....and that mostly works.

So primarily I would suggest seeing doc# 4705 linked above (regarding velvet), and the references therein. All good solutions are discussed. Hit Google Scholar from there as needed.

If you wanna focus on Ich, this is my usual online go-to: FA164/FA164: Cryptocaryon irritans Infections (Marine White Spot ... It's a good baseline, though it doesn't mention dips or peroxide. Anyhow, these folks got up to 91% kill rate with peroxide (they did even better with an herbal).

will have to look at it (and I believe I've read the article before.

Point being for us is that 100 ppm h2o2 was the highest concentration dip that was tested in that study. Folks in other studies (on velvet) are using higher h2o2 concentrations than that (100-300 ppm if I recall correctly), so ich would fall to those same treatments. (See link in next section.)


Again, doc #4705 posted above contains references for this to start you off. I do recommend reading the whole thing though.

A newer ref with a lot more detail, including baths, peroxide and A LOT more: 5. Amyloodiniosis in Semi-Intensive Aquaculture. This is a GREAT adjunct to doc 4705. Table 1 toward the end of section 4 is gold.

If someone doesn't want to read those links....a freshwater dip is used to provide immediate relief by removing attached swarmers.

And I believe I said that also - but usually not as a first choice

Freshwater dips can be used strategically, almost as-needed. Unlike most meds, there's almost no stress involved (be gentle, avoid nets and avoid air exposure – not hard in most cases)*, so there's no reason NOT to do a dip at the first sign of an issue, depending on the exact scenario. I've dipped a LOT of common marine fish with virtually no side effects whatsoever – a few panic instances (mentioned before, not really a big deal) and one instance where I forgot to dechlorinate. MANY, MANY event-free dips tho. I specifically remember dipping a LOT of Tangs, quite a few Triggers, but many others.

I have the feeling that your experience has help avoid some of the issues with fresh water dips, as well as their effectiveness vs risk.

Funny how freshwater dips get considered exotic and "harsh" around and at the same time we're all willy nilly and free with formalin and copper, which are both hard to use and verifiably deadly to the fish if used even slightly wrong. Chelated copper is slightly better, but also slightly less effective and less tested as well.

Most people here do not recommend formalin for a variety of reasons.

Noga, and probably other major sources go into these cautionary details because they are important for risk assessment. Water is not as dangerous as formalin or copper – duh, right?! I don't read every conversation online, but I never seem to see these points brought up when Formalin or Copper is being recommended or used. Dips in freshwater have no such problem.....anyone can do one and they're about as close to foolproof as you can get. (Just don't forget to dechlorinate the tap water.....I forgot that once. Once.)

IF you want to compare you'd have to compare a copper dip (useless) and a formalin dip (maybe helpful for some things)

Well, Ruby Reef is a company...but as far as I know they specialize in coral-safe/tank-safe products: Rally and Kick Ich. I admit it's my assumption that they are herbal treatments...I may have heard that somewhere, but I don't remember where. (What I do know is that I've used most of them in retail and they seem to function as advertised. )

Rally Pro contains acriflavine, aminoacridine, and a small amount of formalin - which are not herbal - and actual medications. The formalin is listed as an ingredient but there is a very very minimal content

Hydroplex is the exception – it's a dip; not tank safe, and I haven't used it personally yet.


Hm....I don't know if looking at it that way is helpful.

We aren't looking to UV to cure clinically infected fish. Ozone does work vs diseases per the literature (I think Jay speculated the action is similar to peroxide in another thread), but it's pretty uncommon in our wing of the hobby, at least in my experience....literally never seen an ozone generator in person, for sale or otherwise.

Some people are.

Makes no sense to me why UV (still) isn't better understood and used more widely – as far as I can tell, it's a very old, established technology....yet it gets treated like it was snake oil. Very odd. Consider that pest algae dino's are dino's and velvet are also dino's......UV works great for the former, even with the janky setups people tend to use. There's no reason to assume things would be very different for parasitic dino's.

I think my personal experience with it was that it was a hassle to change the bulb, huge in size and I never saw any reduction in problems when using it. same with Ozone.

Put it another way for UV and similar: Under what circumstance would you want to give up your control on the situation and purposefully expose your fish to the full brunt of the possible parasite load? Controlling water parameters is good for up to 20% reduction. UV is good for 80+% reduction. Micron, ozone and the rest just take the control percentage higher and higher toward 100% control. Medicinal remedies don't need to come out until the immune systems are obviously not winning the battle anymore.....being observant, it's not hard to discern when a fish is going uphill or downhill – improving or not.

possible - though I believe your number of success of Uv depends on the number of parasites, the flow rate, the UV strength.

Spotte makes a good point about this in "Captive Seawater Fishes..." The fish gets sick because its immune system gets shut down by his own stress responses. Stresses like parasite load matter. (So does everything else – stress is cumulative.) Velvet (Amyloodinium) infections in fish can easily be avoided. is another good article – they used a very comprehensive control system.

Will check it out

Glad I'm not the only one who sees that. ;)

That blurring goes along with this madness of assuming all fish are sick whether they show it or not (eliminating the concept of clinical and subclinical) and treating them regardless of their actual condition. If med's were a miracle cure, then that might make sense. But med's are not a miracle cure any more than anything else is.

My personal solution (I've said this many times - though I'm a fish medic I have never used medication to quarantine a fish.. However... I bought my fish from a LFS that kept then after being paid for in a reef-type tank (so no low dose copper or S.G.). I never had a problem just dropping those fish into my tank. Internet bought fish, though, were a disaster for my tank. thus for other people I recommend the QT protocol on this site.

Of course, this "lack of miracles" is exactly why a comprehensive approach is required on these matters.

Simply treating with meds is not doing anything to move toward "comprehensive". No more comprehensive than doing nothing or just using UV, only with the added risk and toxicity stress that comes from the meds themselves.

Disagree, but I'm not sure what you mean by a comprehensive approach.

Not talking about meds as part of a comprehensive strategy....In a comprehensive strategy the added stress and risk are much more accounted for.

I think 'stress' is over-rated. Fish in the wild have stress as well (other fish trying to eat them etc). the articles measuring cortisol showed that though the levels rose during stress they rapidly dropped after the stress was over.

I'm glad BTW that I at least occasionally see people chime in to say they got fish successfully through "standard QT" because IMO that is a miracle. I'm also glad chelated copper has become more common as it's safer and harder to do wrong......but all the sources say it's also not as effective as old-school copper. "Eradication" is a word that gets thrown around very confidently, but I'm not sure that's actually possible....sources seem to always hedge (eg) that even copper can leave some alive. Just reinforces that there are no miracle cures.

I somewhat agree with you - however, I think the key is doing it properly. Ie. not in a display, not with live rock, etc.

Sorry this got so long.....tell me if I forgot to address anything you asked about. :)

I think you hit everything - and we agree on most things.

 

[MnFish1]

It’s really frustrating the lack access to basic supplies here. Even the fact yes you can get formalin easily but only in a product that pairs it with malachite green.

I even had to import the copper power from the US at 4x the price you guys pay and took a month to get here. But right now I’m very glad I had it in hand

That product has a non-therapeutic level of formalin (assuming you mean ruby rally 0- the 2 other Ingredients are doing the 'work'.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm still not entirely convinced your Mandarin died from Ich with the clowns being asymptomatic. It may have been weakened by some other event or in decline before your outbreak. When did you remove him as I don't see Ich. I don't dispute you have Ich in your Tank and you a correct to suspect the Frags brought it in. I QT all Corals before they go in my DT. Jay indicated Chelated Copper is not a problem for Mandarins so you could get another one. Sorry for your loss.

It is not uncommon for fish to have some immunity to ich in a tank - and thats perhaps the reason

 

[MnFish1]

I'm still not entirely convinced your Mandarin died from Ich with the clowns being asymptomatic. It may have been weakened by some other event or in decline before your outbreak. When did you remove him as I don't see Ich. I don't dispute you have Ich in your Tank and you a correct to suspect the Frags brought it in. I QT all Corals before they go in my DT. Jay indicated Chelated Copper is not a problem for Mandarins so you could get another one. Sorry for your loss.

(Oh and I agree - its possible it was something else)

 

[MnFish1]

I removed him when he died the photo was taken a couple of minutes later. There was definitely a very heavy ich infection on him. He went from asymptomatic to dead in 4 days. The mucus outside the water hides the spots. The clowns have shown spots but are acting and feeding normally, no depression. They are absolutely infected though.

I wouldn’t discount a secondary agent or infection that’s for sure. He wasn’t thin that’s for sure. But I do think if anyone ever says mandarins can’t or won’t get inch then point them to this thread.

The copper issue really revolves around feeding. I’d be willing to risk chelated copper but I’d worry about the pod supply.

I think that head 'wound' is a secondary bacterial infection. JMO